On Friday 2005.02.18 19:47:48 +0100, Keld J�rn Simonsen wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 10:51:53AM -0500, Edward H. Trager wrote:
> >
> > On Friday 2005.02.18 13:07:51 +0000, Simos Xenitellis wrote:
> > >
> > > It's sad that with Debian/Ubuntu you do not get UTF-8 locales by
> > > default.
> > >
> >
> > The lack of UTF-8 locales by default in any modern Linux distribution
> > needs to be treated as a BUG and reported to the distribution vendor in
> > their Bugzilla system.
> >
> > I have been planning to do this for the latest Ubuntu (Warthog), but I
> > haven't
> > got around to it yet.
> >
> > Think about it: any time any of us sees or uses a new distribution without
> > UTF-8
> > locales by default, this needs to be filed as a bug report.
>
> Well, that is not so. for many languages it is better to run something
> else than UTF-8.
Is that really true? I need specific examples in order to believe it. A
general statement
"for many languages it is better to run something else than UTF-8" does not
make me
believe it. Which languages, specifically, and why is it "better" for said
languages?
Anyway, I am not saying I am against someone running ISO-8859-nn locale, if
they want
to. I am simply saying
that the Linux distributions should DEFAULT to a UTF-8 locales. When I run the
installer,
or go to set up a new user, it should give me the choice of a language and then
maybe
there should be a checkbox like this:
[ ] Use legacy ISO locale (Leave unchecked to use Unicode locale)
So, if I don't check the box, I get the UTF-8 locale, and if I do check the box,
I get the legacy locale. Either way, the Linux distributions should run
the localedef scripts to set up UTF-8 locales and, if they think there is some
value to it, they can also set up the ISO-8859-encoded locales too.
- Ed Trager
>
> Best regards
> keld
>
> --
> Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
> Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
>
>
>
--
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
